Talk:G-force/Archive 5

It's a force. Wait! It's an acceleration.  No!  Wait!  It's a force.  What?
"G-force" having units of acceleration doesn't make it an acceleration, it just makes things a little more complex requiring a little more explanation. The phrase "G-force" is a more of a "usage" thing and less an "official physics thing". Calling it a "misnomer" is dismissive of the idea of force as being an essential part of what's going on. That's what others have objected to (I think), and that's what I object to also.

Okay, it is useful to think of it as an acceleration because acceleration "normalizes mass out of the way", but the acceleration is a result of the force, that is, a contact force upon an object. When one "pulls Gs" in an airplane for example, the reaction force to the contact force is what's felt on one's bottom and cheeks. In this situation, the way that your arm drops very quickly to your lap is acceleration. "Force" and "acceleration" is readily intermingled by knowledgeable users because they know among each other that the factor of mass is there while context makes their meaning clear. The "g-force" of a person standing on the ground on Earth would be "1.0" in some contexts and "1.0 times weight" in other contexts. It's all a complex miasma of meaning (but not too complex). To say "it's not a force" (at all) is a disservice because it misleads a lay-reader. The reference is unreliable because it does this disservice. By reactively quoting the reference, WE do the disservice.

Additionally, by calling it strictly an acceleration, a rocket lifting off with thrust twice it's 1G-weight would have a "G-force" of only 1.0 G. While common usage of the term says "2.0G". But one of those Gs is from an actual force (gravity), the other G comes from the "equal-and-opposite-reaction" FORCE opposing the contact forces of objects inside. The point here is that gravity is a force and it is usually a component of "G-force" as the phrase is used. "Forceyness" is also part of the picture for this reason.

"Guardian(s)" of this article are being somewhat aristocratic. "They" have insisted on retaining some very bad references for the sake of having references. "They" disallowed good changes by "always being there" to reactively revert. The problem with the references is that they give a result that is merely satisfying because it feels like it satisfies standards, while it actually doesn't. Under the current "citation-at-all-costs" regime, the attraction of a reference overwhelms the need to be more accurate or to explain better. It is quite possible to have it all - good refs, correctness, and good explanation. But, these references merely look reliable. They get ascribed more reliability than they deserve because they let editors off the hook for making it actually better. If you have to delete a bad reference to make an article better, the loss of a reference (as bad as the ref might be) is often an impediment to making the change. A reactionary citing of "wikipedia standards" is not a valid answer. THINK!

Also, "free fall" is NOT well defined and unambiguous. It depends on the planet, etc. In the context that it was given, it was quite ambiguous.

I have no power to improve the funky lead paragraph because the "aristocrats" have the power. I was once an aristocrat, but I gave it up because such power is invalid. I will try once to make a change. I will remove those rotten references. I will insert some text that is better while not perfect. I suggest the classic instant reversion be avoided. Instead, if you're hot for references, find some. If you don't like the wording, improve it. Don't be a reactionary rabid citationist, powerful IP-dismissing wiki-aristocrat. Be better.

72.93.172.64 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Given what you've just written, I am almost certain to revert you; so you might as well not bother. Sorry. You apparently don't understand the topic.- Wolfkeeper  22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * G-force is what is measured by suitably calibrated accelerometers. Accelerometers don't measure forces, they measure accelerations.- Wolfkeeper  22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper,

It looks like you have become one more arrogant wiki-aristocrat (or maybe it's just yet another aspergers case). Not very collegial of me, eh? True. But, you've called for it in spades here. I do indeed know what I'm talking about. That's a fact that other knowledgable readers can confirm. You dismissed valid discussion off-hand. You haven't even sought out other knowledgeable opinions about the matter, you just dismissed by your own vaunted authority. You stated you would revert before you even saw the text. You've embraced your power to dismiss criticism you don't like, power you've achieved by virtue of only your omnipresence. And Wolfkeeper, you are omnipresent around and about wikipedia, you're everywhere man. THIS is one of the many reasons for the decline of wikipedia (that you seem to lament on your page), that is, the pissing-off and chasing away of valid knowledge in exchange for the omnipresence and overreaching of people with way too much time on their hands.

Like I said, you have the power. You do, you really do. It's the wrong kind of power, but you have it. When I make the changes, you CAN do a knee-jerk revert - and I won't change it back. But, consider that reverting without GOOD reasoning shows one more demonstration of only an aristrocrat's power, not a seasoned editor's ability to work with others to improve the real quality of the material.

72.93.174.195 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with people improving or even pretty much, just changing articles. It's when they claim they improved it but actually the accuracy slips that I revert their changes.- Wolfkeeper  06:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You also seem to be calling for 'thinking' as being more important than references; in other words pretty much original research. Sorry, the wikipedia's position is that verifiability is greater than truth. You might be 100% right (or... not, usually not), but if the references say you're wrong, so far as the wikipedia is concerned, you're wrong.- Wolfkeeper  06:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, user:72.93.174.195, it may help to point out that "free fall" is well-defined. It simply means "inertial frame of reference." That's a reference frame where the behavior of objects is simple, like in free-fall (in the frame, they are either at rest, or else they move at constant velocity in straight lines by Newton's first law until stopped, etc). Gravity does not produce a G-force on objects within a falling elevator or vomit-comet or orbiting space shuttle (absent tidal effects), and what these have in common is that they are all free-fall or inertial frames. Objects at "rest" in inertial frames feel no G-force. Objects at rest in accelerated frames, however, DO feel G-forces, which are in units of force/mass = accelerations. These are proper accelerations, and they can be directly measured by accelerometers. These forces keep the objects at rest in these accelerated frames. Obviously they don't include gravity, but they do include other types of force which causes stresses inside extended objects. By this definition, diamagnetic levitation or the effect of a static electric field on a charge both produces a "G-force" acceleration without internal stresses, but usually this is not the case. Most kinds of G-force do produce stresses which we can mentally identify as internal (and external) forces which stress extended objects (like a astronaut's seat stressing the astronaut, or even your chair stressing you, while at your computer). S  B Harris 07:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kilograms and Newtons and weight all mixed up
The article currently reads, "If the pilot pulls back on the stick until the accelerometer indicates 2 g, his weight (the force acting downwards on him) will double to 19.6 N/kg. A spring-based weighing scale, for the duration of a 2 g pitch-up maneuver, would reveal that his weight has truly doubled; a pilot who normally weighs 80 kilograms would momentarily weigh 160 kilograms."

There's a lot wrong with these two sentences. The first problem is that the second sentence seems to only be repeating the first sentence but with different units. If you can state something clearly once, there's no reason to repeat it. The second problem is that the two sentences are not consistent with their units, one says his weight will double to 19.6N/kg and the other says his weight will double to 160kg. So which is it, does he weigh 19.6N/kg or 160kg? Because those aren't equivalent. The third problem is that neither number is actually correct. Newtons per kilogram is not a measure of weight, 19.6N/kg is exactly equivalent to 19.6m/s^2 or 2*(9.8m/s^2) or 2 times the acceleration of gravity (2g). This is his acceleration, not weight. The pilot does not weight 9.8m/s^2 (9.8N/kg) when he's not pulling back on the stick any more than I weight 9.8m/s^2 sitting here writing this comment. And the second sentence isn't much better, as it refers to 80kg and 160kg as being his 'weight'. Kilograms measure mass not weight, he will stay at 80kg before, during, and after the maneuver. I get what it's trying to say about using a 'spring-based weighing scale' because a scale that displays kilograms made to work at the surface of the Earth under 9.8m/s^2 will read a different number when under a different acceleration, but that's not kilograms. If you're going to talk about weight, you should use an actual weight measure, like Newtons or pounds. Onlynone (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to go ahead and remove the worst parts, but someone may want to completely rewrite the section those sentences came from. Onlynone (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The weight they are talking about obviously is kilogram-force units, or kiloponds. Technically it is the pound-force which is the English weight. You can't have it otherwise, since pounds are now defined in terms of kilograms! S  B Harris 21:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not obvious that they are talking about kilogram-force units or kiloponds. If they were, they would have used the name "kilogram-force" or "kiloponds"; or the proper abbreviation: kgf or kp. Instead, "kilograms" was used without any further explanation, which is mass not weight. I was unaware of the redefinition of pound as a unit of mass, but it still stands that the unit Pound-force is still usually called a pound and can be abbreviated lb (the Weight article even says, "the pound can be either a unit of force or a unit of mass"), whereas kilogram is unambiguously mass not weight. Anyways, I had taken out any references to weight, or units thereof. If someone would like to add a correct sentence or two about weight, that would be fine by me, but it seems pretty clear and concise right now with just force mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlynone (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Acceleration relative to what?
A g-force is a specific force. The g-force on an object is the same in all reference frames, the acceleration of an object is frame dependent. Objects on the surface of the earth experience 1 g, there is no acceleration of any kind. --Norbeck (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse proper acceleration (sometimes called "real acceleration"), which is what is measured by g-force, and coordinate acceleration which is what you're thinking of. Proper/real acceleration, along with the null time, is a Lorentz invariant 4-vector, called the 4-acceleration. That's sort of what makes it "real" (and what makes all observers agree on it). The coordinate acceleration is less useful, as it's frame dependent. It doesn't look like an object sitting on the earth's surface is accelerating, and indeed is not coordinate-accelerating (as seen from the frame of the earth), but actually it is undergoing 4-acceleration through space-time (undergoing proper acceleration), and this is due to the force exerted on it by the ground (not by gravity). All objects not in free-fall are being 4-accelerated! They are undergoing an "unnatural motion."  The force measured by g-force (the force of the ground for an object on the ground) is causing them to perform an unnatural act, so that they no longer follow a geodesic in 4-space, which is the natural behavior of all objects unless you "yank" on them. An object allowed to fall no longer experiences this, and has a g-force of zero. Gravity doesn't "yank" on objects-- it warps 4-space. Which is why it doesn't produce a g-force, ever. Read the articles and think about them, and get back to us.  S  B Harris 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

John Stapp
In order to keep with accuracy of the events of 1948 I would like to clarify that John Stapp did not peak at 22 G's. He did in fact far surpass that number all together by August 1948, Stapp had completed sixteen runs, surviving not just 18 G's but a bone-jarring, jaw-dropping 35. Two years later, in June 1951, Stapp made his last run, absorbing more than 35 Gs of deceleration in a forward position. By then he'd also survived a 46 G run with a rate of onset of 500 Gs per second, and a 38 G run with an onset of nearly 1300. While these facts may seem trivial to others the human body can potential survive 46 G's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.9.127.6 (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's in the text. Stapp didn't get to 46 g till his last run at the end of 1954. He never made another. This was the peak, and he took over 25 g's for 1.1 sec. The caption of the photo refers to an earlier run in March, 54. see  S  B Harris 05:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Death by G-Force after LOC?
G-Force is invariably transitory and provides no time for hypoxia to cause death, this requires several minutes of extreme G-LOC. Theoretically, a centrifuge could sustain G-Force for the length of time needed but to my knowledge none have ever caused such a death. I cannot think of a single case in history where G-Force has caused death directly through hypoxia, although being the unconscious pilot of a plane is likely to head that way shortly, the cause of death is the crash. The citation quoted has no link, or alternatively publishing details, and is insufficient here and frankly it is not credible or perhaps it may have been misinterpreted. Suggest we delete Death after G-LOC in the progressive sequence. E x nihil (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * G-force in a centrifuge is invariably transitory? Hah!Rememberway (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which bit of having the blood centrifuged out of your brain into your feet will not cause death? Brains seriously do not like a real lack of oxygen for even short periods. You die. And not like drowning or holding your breath, where your lungs often have air in them that can keep you brain alive for several minutes, none of the oxygen reaches your brain. You're dead in well under a minute.Rememberway (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that no g-force any rocket or airplane generates, can remove enough blood from your brain, for long enough, to kill you if you're healthy. That's just a matter of the thickness of our atmosphere, the limits on strain that wings can take, and the ΔV of available rockets. And a minute of no blood to your brain will most certainly NOT kill you if your heart continues to beat. A healthy brain can take 4-6 minutes of no blood flow without permanent damage, if you have immediate strong reperfusion (and often even more than that, depending on age and post reperfusion treatment). A minute of vacuum will "kill" you, meaning that you won't spontaneously resuscitate when recompressed, but that's only because a minute of vacuum stops your heart. A minute of severe g-force (presumably enough to black you out, but not cause some disastrous vascular incident, like popping a brain aneurism or tearing your aorta off) will not only not stop your heart, but it won't entirely stop brain perfusion either. The last parts of your CNS still to get blood flow will be your brainstem (which keeps you breathing) and so on. When the acceleration stops, you'll gasp like a fish and eventually wake up. Provided (as has been noted) that you didn't impact the ground in the meantime. S  B Harris 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect G-force on the Bugatti example?
I am mediocre in physics, but I get the same g-force to be something like 3 g or so, at least not 1. Could someone competent please verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.35.149 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, 1.18 g is correct if we neglect the g-force from simple resistance to gravity (the 1 g if the car stands still). The horizontal g-force from horizontal acceleration only is simply ΔV/t = [100,000 m/hr = 27.77 m/sec]/2.4 sec = 11.57 m/sec. Divide by 9.81 m/sec/g to get 1.18 g in the horizontal axis. The total would be sqrt [(1.18^2 + 1^2)] = 1.55 g (in a vector direction about 90-arctan 1.18 = 40 degrees depressed from the horizontal plane). I'll change this, since I think total g-force is what that chart means (as it gives 1 g for just standing on the ground). S B Harris 23:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Human tolerance of g-force in liquids?
On Island one I read that humans "can withstand up to 60 g when they are immersed in a liquid, and their lungs are filled with oxygenated saline solution." Are there any experiments which supports this?

--Stefan.K. (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Show me the INDA permit fron FDA that allows one to do such an experiment and you'll see the practical problems. Dissolving away lung surfactant is just the beginning of your mechanical/ weight problems. That list of risks would be lots of fun: Start with one fresh NASA human astronaut approved ultracentrifuge, unobtainium design, Project Stargate 1, Area 51. Damn-- the Grays  are always flippant about paperwork... Cathcart!!!  S  B Harris 07:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sign convention
I've kept sign convention for acceleration and weight-force vectors as the natural Cartesian ones for y axis: positive means "up" and negative means "down." The reason +g (+acceleration) produces downward (-) weight is the fact that F(weight) = -m*a. The minus sign is due to the fact that weight is a reaction-force, not the F that produces the acceleration (for which case we would have Newton's second law F=ma). In all these examples, a is the g-force, and thus when it's positive (upward) the weight (weight force) it produces, is downward (negative), and vice versa. I hope that fixes the squabble about the hatnote sign at the front of this article. This article is consistent with the idea that negative g's (-g force) produces positive weight. But positive weight, please remember, is weight UPWARD! Since "down" is the -y direction, it is negative weight that is our normal weight that acts downward. S B Harris 22:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this the 16th most popular article?
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/G-force ? EJM86 (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Commercial Airplanes missing form Typical examples of g-force
Commercial Airplanes are a reference point, most people have and thus should be on the example list

Davoud Taghawi-Nejad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.172.6.43 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In traffic
At some typical force level examples for starting and stopping at red lights in traffic. Jidanni (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

g divided by time
Shouldn't this article include the difference of g force divided by time?

There are great difference of experiencing 10 g's for a millisecond and for ten seconds. A person have experienced and survived over 46 g's in a certain amount of time, but it is lethal to experience for example 25 g's over a minute. This difference may not be understandable in this article.


 * Something definitely needed here, particularly in reference to G onset. There is a prevailing thought, particularly among motorsport enthusiasts, that huge deceleration is survivable because of the short timeframe, as in the Kenny Bräck example. Were this true, we would not need crush zones in cars. The shorter the time the loading is experienced for, the more damaging the impact. Flanker235 (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Physics
The article claims that the variations in the acceleration due to the gravity of the earth are due to so-called centrifugal forces. This is a poor explanation. I believe a better one would be:

One reason involves the difference in the distance from the centre of the Earth between the two positions due to the equatorial bulge – this leads to a variation in the gravitational field strength. The equator is further away from the centre of the Earth than the poles leading to a difference of about 0.05 m s–2. The second reason is due to the rotation of the Earth. The person on the equator experiences a centripetal acceleration. Given that the scales read the normal (or reaction) force N, in this case N = m(g–ac). Therefore there is a slight reduction (of the order of the first effect) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.7.1 (talk • contribs)

Further problems. The article states that weight is not the force on the object, but the reaction force ( from Newton's third law). However, the wikipedia article on weight does not define force this way! There is more than one way to define weight, and this article has chosen one, whereas the wikipedia article states that the other way is the usual way.

Another problem. There is massive confusion here about whether the force is a scalar or a vector. The force and the acceleration are both vectors. The direction might not always be stated, but that does not alter the fact that they are vectors. Very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.167.131 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While we're about it, the article quite correctly states that G is not a force but an acceleration. Could we please give some though to this having higher prominence? Flanker235 (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please include a section for non-scientists
just a few sentences that the non-science majors can use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.173.196 (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've simplified the lede a bit. It's been trying not to say the obvious, which is that all the forces we're talking about, are mechanical contact forces between objects. They propagate through the object as mechanical stresses. These forces then cause what we call "g-force acceleration." This is why g-forces always (without exception) produce mechanical stress. This is because of their origin from a contact-point. Electromagnetic and gravitational forces, which act on all parts of an object at once, don't produce any g-force (g-force acceleration), and don't produce any mechanical stress. No matter how much you tow an object with gravity, it always experiences zero-g, which means zero g-force. Presumably the same would be true of a uniformly-charged object or uniformly magnetic object uniformly levitated or moved by a magnetic or electric field. Objects floating by buoyancy experience surface contact forces (as in a water bed). A frog floating in water would feel a g-force just as a person does in a water-bed. But a frog levitated in a strong magnetic field should feel something very close to zero-g, and no g-force acceleration. S  B Harris 00:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we are not talking about mechanical forces between objects here; those are impact (mechanics) or mechanical shock.  An authoritative resource is MIL-STD-810 sect 516.6,para 2.1.1.1 which talks about shock being short duration where its frequency is  near the natural frequency of the object.  Thus a high speed fighter jet making a sharp turn produces g-forces.  Also a racing car produces g-forces during a quick start.  Also a roller-coaster produces g-forces.   An automobile hitting a brick wall produces a shock.  A dropped package produces a shock. A dropped glass of water produces an impact or shock.   Shocks are also measured in g-s which is part of the confusion.  g-forces relate to the perceived effects of longer accelerations.   Let's work on the opening paragraph to clarify this. Pkgx (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on G-force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090302163947/http://www.esa.int:80/esaLP/ESAK4XZK0TC_LPgoce_0.html to http://www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAK4XZK0TC_LPgoce_0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Alpine skiing
In the "Typical examples" list "Typical to max. turn in Alpine ski racing" is listed as "5-12"G's. I did some digging and I wasn't able to find anything supporting much more than 3-4g's. And I have a hard time believing that a skier can pull g's like a fighter plane. Larry13 (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed the entry pending a reference. Also unlikely. E x nihil  (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on G-force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228061655/http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/9/10005.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/9/10005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Cars acceleration
The acceleration values in the table are average value, considering the ratio between the total change of speed (100 km/h) and the duration of the change. It would be more interesting to know the maximum acceleration: no car has a constant acceleration: the torque vs. rpm curve of the motor, the change of the gear rapport (if not an electric car) and the aerodynamical friction make the acceleration higher at the beginning and lower at the end. As I said, it would be more interesting to know the maximum acceleration: I suppose that the most of the other values are the peak value and not the average. --Angelo Mascaro (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Acceleration, not force?
It is inaccurate to say that g-force is an acceleration, not a force. The concept of g-force is the force acting on an object because of acceleration. If you were in a plane pulling 2 g, with a scale under your butt, it would read twice your weight. Electronic and spring scales measure force, not acceleration. Hermanoere (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on G-force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210035728/http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/altitude/altitude.html to http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/altitude/altitude.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122024243/http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch5.htm to http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Biplane illustration
The top illustration of a biplane seems to be claiming that an aircraft banking subjects the pilot to 2 Gs force due to the fact he is being acted on by earth's gravity and by the acceleration of the aircraft. Maybe I just read that wrong, but that's what it seems to say, and I don't think that's correct. Worse, it says "G increases as angle of bank increases", which is totally untrue. Angle of bank has nothing to do with the G force on the pilot. It's the rate of turn. Yes, frequently a tighter turn requires more bank, but other than that, no. You could fly a plane with a 90deg bank and not be "pulling" ANY Gs except for gravity trying to pull you straight sideways. It's banking and then pulling UP on the control column that causes the aircraft to turn. Increasing rate of turn is accomplished by pulling harder, or possibly by banking more. The G is a function of rate-of-turn and the speed of the aircraft. I'm no expert, but what is described there is misleading at best, because that's what it seems to be saying to me. AnnaGoFast (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on G-force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321182843/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/stapp.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/stapp.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217092615/http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/sensotec/accelerometers.asp to http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/sensotec/accelerometers.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201150824/http://sensr.com/products/gp1/index.php to http://www.sensr.com/products/gp1/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202091041/http://delphi.com/about/motorsports/products/adr3/ to http://delphi.com/about/motorsports/products/adr3/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118161602/http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq04.html to http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq04.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.omegawatches.com/customer-service/faq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No reference to justify topic or opening statements
The article starts off with the following two statements. "The gravitational force, or more commonly, g-force, is a measurement of the type of acceleration that causes a perception of weight. Despite the name, it is incorrect to consider g-force a fundamental force, as "g-force" is a type of acceleration that can be measured with an accelerometer".

But there are no references following the two statements. The references at the end of the first paragraph do not in any way justify these two statements. It appears that this topic of g-force is something that has been made up but has no justification anywhere in the literature. RHB100 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

citation #36.
Firefox warned me not to proceed to the second link "The original". the first link to the wayback machine is ok.I am not experienced at editing. Please email me at rickgellert@hotmail.com with subject "G-Force" to let me know when this is fixed. ThanksThatrick (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Procedural close. Editor is correct in that a page move is not needed for this proposed change. Suggest this be discussed in a new section where editors can decide whether or not to remove from the 7th line. Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover)  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 03:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

g-force → G-force – COMMONNAME; the capitalised form is by far the normal form in English, by leaps and bounds. And only in rare and exceptional cases do we have our article titles be in lower case; making such an exception for something that is almost never, unless it's in French, written with in lower care in the real world is bassackwards, is jarring to readers, and is confusing. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:10BA:9558:7F4:32F (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think this is about the at the beginning of the article, which displays the letter 'G' in lowercase. At first I thought it was about capitalizing the "f" in "force". —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose This is the force due to gravitational acceleration. In all of my studies, gravitational accelleration has been represented as "g". This n-gram would indicate about equal usage of the capped/uncapped versions of "g". The guidance at WP:AT (throught ultimately at MOS:CAPS is that we would rely only cap if this is done in a significant majority (nearly always) of sources. The evidence is that it should be "g-force" in running text.  The article consistently uses lowercase.  To how it should be in the title is a different matter.  WP:TITLEFORMAT states: Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default ....  MOS:LCITEMS gives guidance on names of units of physical quantities or their symbols - that they should always retain their specific case. In that respect, the article title is correct - ie "g-force".  Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition?
The article currently defines g-force as:
 * The g-force experienced by an object is due to the vector sum of all non-gravitational and non-electromagnetic forces acting on an object's freedom to move.

So what are these forces? Strong nuclear force? Weak nuclear force? Is there some fifth force that I don't know about?

"Mechanical" forces where one thing touches another (and both are ordinary matter) are due to electric field repulsion between the electrons in the outer shell of their atoms. So this definition doesn't make any sense. Perhaps if it came from a cited source I could check to see what the actual source says. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed the non-electromagnetic portion of the definition. Makes more sense now. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)